Oddly enough, with the Black pieces, I took up 2...e6 in large part because the anti-sicilians (not just 3. Bb5+, but also 3. g3, 2. Nc3 and 3. f4, etc., all seem easier to meet if you can play d7-d5 in one move.

I had been playing the Najdorf/Scheveningen, and moved to the Taimanov/Scheveningen not because of specifically Najdorf lines, but because no one would let me play Najdorf lines!

Fun game! I had made a note of 7.Bc4!? as an interesting alternative to the main lines 7.Bf1 and 7.Ba4 - as I understand it White tries to provoke ...b7-b5 before retreating to f1, arguing that having the pawn on b5 weakens the Black position.

I haven't really researched or played 7.Bc4 yet, but I would surely have to examine this game carefully.

After dabbling with/playing the Moscow for several years, I'm also coming around to the view that White should just go 3 d4. As trendy and a decent weapon 3 Bb5+ might be among the elite, at least for me, it really isn't terribly inspiring.

Incidentally, against someone I knew would be likely to play 3...Nd7, I might be inclined to opt for the Moscow. It just seems like an odd choice for a hard-core Sicilian player, as after 4 c3 (and perhaps also 4 0-0, but Black has those weird ...g5 things to avoid it), play is very Spanish-y. Incidentally, my last tournament game against 3...Nd7 was against a player who normally plays 1 e4 e5, so that made a lot of sense to me (I lost that game pretty badly).

The Rossolimo, on the other hand, I like a lot for White. After 2...e6, I kind of feel like White should also be going 3 d4, but there's a few alternatives that seem relatively appealing. I used to play 3 d3; I got some decent positions with it, but eventually everyone started going ...Nc6/...g6 with Black, when I didn't really see anything I liked for White. 3 g3 on the other hand, if you like playing against an IQP, seems like quite a good choice (at least it seemed that way when I last looked at it). 3 b3 I've played, and it's interesting, even if not better for White. Meanwhile, 3 c3, I actually like quite a lot - the lines with ...e6, while solid, somehow feel less "intrusive", I guess, than the stuff with ...Nf6-d5-b6/...Nc6/...d6 and ...d5/...Qxd5/...Nf6/...Bg4.

... Black, who likely wanted one of the sharper Open Sicilians, may well be even more bored and disappointed by 3.Bb5+!

If I were such a Black I'd go 3 ...Nc6 (equivalent with how I'd answer the Rossolimo), and then it might be 'game on'!

I also played that as Black for a few years (from the Rossolimo order). Not too inspiring in my case: I had several draws and one crushing defeat; no wins at standard time controls that I can recall. I did better when I switched to 3...g6 intending the trendy 4.Bxc6 bxc6. But this is all about style and taste; neither I nor my opponents play anywhere near perfectly after the opening anyway.

That's the spirit, yolocounty. I should probably just study up on these Maroczy lines and likely get decent results in them.

But right now I'm more inclined to go for some even lower-theory sidelines within the Moscow in the short term while secretly preparing to take the plunge with 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4!

There are some openings I just don't like the look of from either side of the board, and the Moscow with 4.Bxd7+ Qxd7 is one of them. If I were to face 3.Bb5+ with Black, I would probably prefer the more complex 3...Nd7.

I tend to be very comfortable in Maroczy positions with White, so perhaps I am biased, but they do not offer Black a lot of opportunities for active counterplay unless White actually blunders. Black can often obtain an endgame with less space which can be held after patient defense... but it usually seems like a "two results" game to me!

2...e6 is "superior" to 2...d6 and 2...Nc6 in that White does not have 3. Bb5(+) as a response, and therefore actually has to play a Sicilian if he wants an advantage.

Maybe. I've thought a lot about this question recently, but mostly with White "glasses" on.

I've actually concluded that 2...d6 is the superior move, at least against me! When I play Anti-Sicilians with White, what I really want is to get interesting positions without having to know reams of the latest theory. (I wouldn't mind an objective edge either of course, but that may not be realistic). But against 2...d6 the verdict seems to be that all the Anti-Sicilians are ultimately toothless - the Moscow (3.Bb5+) is supposed to be the exception, but I really struggle to see the fun in the Maroczy positions that are supposed to be best play after 3...Bd7 4.Bxd7+ Qxd7.

I guess a more sadistic person than me would be encouraged by the thought that Black, who likely wanted one of the sharper Open Sicilians, may well be even more bored and disappointed by 3.Bb5+! So much for "Chess, like love, like music, has the power to make men happy" (Dr. Tarrasch)...

It's supposed to be a full repertoire for White when Black plays 2...e6. In 4 knights 6.Nxc6 is recommended to avoid the Sveshnikov, which is nice as I don't remember it being covered for White in any book recently.

If this book only covers Kan and Taimanov the term the white repertour would become gigiantic vs just two sicilian systems .

What I can think of instead is either a complete repertoaur vs the sicilian or book similar to "Taimanov bible" where every single system is covered for both sides or perhaps even written from whites point of view. I think the term "the Flexible Sicilian" refereces to blacks many different ways of playing open sicilian while it adresses the book "The most flexible sicilian".